-
-
Low levels of p53 mutations in Indian patients with osteosarcoma and the correlation with fluoride levels in bone
The pathogenesis of osteogenic sarcoma is not known. Recently, chronic fluoride exposure has been incriminated as having a possible etiologic role by causing a nonspecific osteoblast proliferation. We were interested in exploring the possible relationship between fluoride bone content and p53 mutations. We analyzed p53 mutations in various exons in
-
Drinking water fluoridation and osteosarcoma incidence on the island of Ireland
The incidence of osteosarcoma in Northern Ireland was compared with that in the Republic of Ireland to establish if differences in incidence between the two regions could be related to their different drinking water fluoridation policies. Data from the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR) and the National Cancer Registry of
-
USA: More About Fluoride.
This excerpt was provided free by Science Direct; the full article requires payment. ... The supporting cancer hazard evidence was an animal study sponsored by the government’s National Toxicology Program (Lancet, Feb 3, p 282). Since then, the Public Health Service has responded to this and similar news stories by reaffirming
-
Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water
BACKGROUND: Recent animal studies of the potential carcinogenicity of fluoride prompted an examination of bone cancer incidence rates. METHODS: Trends in the incidence of primary bone cancers, including the incidence of osteosarcomas were examined among residents of New York State, exclusive of New York City. Average annual osteosarcoma incidence rates
-
A Case-Control Study of Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma.
Public health policy decisions in the United States have resulted in 62.4% of the population having access to fluoridated water. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between community water fluoridation and osteosarcoma. A secondary data analysis was performed with data collected from 2 separate but linked
Related Studies :
-
-
-
NTP Bioassay on Fluoride/Cancer (1990)
In 1977, the U.S. Congress requested that animal studies be conducted to determine if fluoride can cause cancer. The result of the Congressional request was an extensive animal study conducted in the 1980s by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and published in 1990. The main finding of NTP's study was a dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma (bone cancer) among the fluoride-treated male rats.
-
Fluoride's Mutagenicity: In vitro Studies
According to the National Toxicology Program, "the preponderance of evidence" from laboratory "in vitro" studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens (i.e. they can cause cancer). As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested
-
Fluoride/Osteosarcoma Link Is Biologically Plausible
The "biological plausiblility" of a fluoride-osteosarcoma link is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature. The biological plausibility centers around three facts: 1) Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood; 2) Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations, and 3) Fluoride can stimulate the proliferation of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells).
-
Fluoride's Mutagenicity: In vivo Studies
Consistent with dozens of in vitro studies, a number of in vivo studies, in both humans and animals, have found evidence of fluoride-induced genetic damage. In particular, research on humans exposed to high levels of fluoride have found increased levels of "sister chromatid exchange" (SCE). As noted in one study: "In
-
A Critique of Gelberg's Study on Fluoride/Osteosarcoma in New York
The case-control study by Gelberg, published first as a PhD dissertation and then later in two peer-reviewed journals, may represent the most substantive study on fluoride/osteosarcoma previous to Bassin’s 2001 analysis. In assessing Gelberg’s data, we were at first struck by the existence of several notable errors in both the thesis and papers. While these errors do raise questions about the study, our primary concern with Gelberg’s work relates to the methods she used to analyze her data.
Related FAN Content :
-